On 20 Jun., 19:34, "Julio Di Egidio" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:> "WM" <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message>> news:3e530939-7018-4b61-87a8-96b4763304e2@o1g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...>>>> > On 20 Jun., 15:41, "Julio Di Egidio">> >> So, there is no such thing as an "additional step" to take, we> >> just consider the limit of the sequence...>> > No. You seem to have not yet understood. But I enjoy to explain it> > again, and again, and again, ... because the story is incredible.>> > Every set of the sequence>> > 1,> > 1, 2> > 1, 2, 3> > ...>> > is the union of all its predecessors and its last {n}.>> > There are infinitely many sets, so there are infinitely many unions.>> <snip>>> Potentially so,

According to matheology that set exists actually and has aleph_0members.

> The whole set N, an infinite set, is just the> *limit* of that sequence of finite sets.

May be, although, according to matheologians, limit ordinals are notlimits. Anyhow I need not include that limit in my set of FISONs.According to matheology that set exists and has aleph_0 members.>> N = lim_{n->oo} FISON(n) = lim_{n->oo} ( FISON(n-1) U {n} )>> (That's maybe not 100% rigorous as N itself is not necessarily ordered:

Above all it is completely off topic here.

> > I love this story really so much!>> It's rather amazing that all you can do is repeat

That is necessary because most readers, like you for instance, arevery slow in understanding written texts and try to evade into otherarguments unless I insist on just this one.